Allahabad High Court
Shaba Bano vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51741
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6118 of 2025
Applicant :- Shaba Bano
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Mishra,Jitendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Satendra Nath Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Anil Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 21.09.2024 as well as cognizance order dated 26.11.2024 and entire proceeding of Case No.1346 of 2024 (State Vs. Babloo and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.225 of 2024, under Sections 351(2), 115(2), 110 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023, Police Station-Phaphamau, District-Ganganagar, Commissionerate Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-6, Prayagraj.
3. Brief facts of the case are; that an FIR has been lodged on 16.08.2024 at 15:25 hours under Sections 115 and 351(2) of B.N.S. by opposite party no.2 against four named accused with the allegations that on 14.08.2024 at about 4 O'Clock when opposite party no.2 entered the room for his Aadhar Card, four persons named in the FIR including the applicant were present there and suddenly caught hold of opposite party no.2. It has been specifically alleged that accused Babloo and Shama caught hold of opposite party no.2 and pushed him on the ground. The applicant Sabha Bano throttled the neck of O.P. No.2 so that he could not scream for help. The alleged accused Babloo instigated all the others to assault opposite party no.2. The applicant Sabha Bano assaulted O.P. No.2 with an Axe on his head and Surendra Kumar with rod, due to which O.P. No.2 sustained serious injuries on his head and all parts of the body. He reached the police station in serious condition and the present FIR was lodged. It has further been alleged that all the accused persons have done this incident in order to grab the house of opposite party no.2. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted on 21.09.2024 and applicant was summoned by order dated 26.11.2024, hence the present application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present FIR has been lodged with false and frivolous allegations due to ulterior motive. Emphasizing upon the application placed at page-85 of the present affidavit, he submits that an application was moved by the applicant on 14.09.2024 mentioning about the incident wherein the police has submitted a report stating that present case has been lodged for Pesh Bandi, therefore, in view of the details mentioned in the application on 14.09.2024 as moved by the applicant, present case is nothing but a counterblast to the aforesaid case.
5. He further submits that an application dated 05.09.2024 has been moved by the applicant before the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj, mentioning that on 14.08.2024 at around 4 O'Clock, opposite party no.2 came along with two friends namely, Amar Singh and Satya Prakash and asked the applicant to please his friends to which the applicant objected but the opposite party no.2 and his friends threw the applicant on the ground, due to which the applicant in order to save herself hit them by a wooden plank, due to which they jumped from the balkony and ran away and got injured. Thus, in order to save himself, FIR has been lodged by opposite party no.2 so that the applicant does not open her mouth regarding the misconduct done by opposite party no.2 over the past 7 to 8 years. He further submits that on the aforesaid application as moved by the applicant, the police has submitted a report on 14.09.2024, mentioning therein that the application has been given as Pesh Bandi to make out the case against the applicant. The police has not properly conducted the enquiry. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon length.
6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the charge sheet as well as summoning order as from the version of the FIR and statement of witnesses, prima facie offence is made out. The injury report along with X-Ray report are annexed as Annexure-2 which shows that opposite party no.2 has suffered serious injuries, which proves the incident. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the applicant, an application has been moved by the applicant on 05.09.2024 mentioning about the misbehaviour by opposite party no.2 over the past 7 to 8 years. If there is any such case, proper investigation has been conducted and report has been submitted, but no explanation has been given by the applicant as to why she remained silent for the last 7 to 8 years and she has no objection to the conduct, if any, of opposite party No.2.
7. Learned A.G.A. further submits that in the enquiry conducted by the police on the application given after lodging of the FIR, it has been stated that the applicant is on rent in some house and opposite party no.2 is landlord having possession over the same, having no intention of vacating the house, she along with her friends has done the incident and subsequently moved an application to prove the case as a counterblast. He further submits that all the other contentions raised by the applicant's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. From perusal of the records, prima facie, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence has been committed by the applicant.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present application.
9. This Court finds that the averments made in the application as well as grounds taken call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may adequately be adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. The issue whether it is appropriate for this Court being the Highest Court to exercise its jurisdiction u/s 528 B.N.S.S. to quash the charge-sheet, cognizance and the proceedings at the stage when the Magistrate has merely issued process against the applicants and trial is to yet to commence only on the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that present criminal case initiated by opposite party no.2 is not only malicious but also are an abuse of the process of law has elaborately been discussed by the Apex Court in the following judgments:-
(i) R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866.
(ii) State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors.;1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335.
(iii) State of Bihar & Anr. Versus P.P. Sharma & Anr.; 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222.
(iv) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohammad Shariful Haque & Anr.; 2005 (1) SCC 122.
(v) M. N. Ojha Vs. Alok Kumar Srivastava; 2009 (9) SCC 682.
(vi) Mohd. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar & Others; 2019 0 Supreme (SC) 454.
(vii) Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 45.
(viii) Rajeev Kaurav Vs. Balasahab & Others; 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 143.
(ix) M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra; 2021 SCC Online SC 315.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the perusal of the F.I.R. and the material collected by the Investigating Officer on the basis of which the charge sheet has been submitted makes out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the charge sheet or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.
11. The prayer for quashing the impugned charge-sheet, cognizance/summoning order as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are refused, as I do not see any abuse of the court's process at this pre-trial stage.
12. The present application has no merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 9.4.2025
Rahul.
